{"id":39,"date":"2026-05-29T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-05-29T08:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/?p=39"},"modified":"2026-05-31T12:27:28","modified_gmt":"2026-05-31T10:27:28","slug":"soul-and-vimarsa-between-plotinus-and-utpaladeva","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/2026\/05\/29\/soul-and-vimarsa-between-plotinus-and-utpaladeva\/","title":{"rendered":"Soul and Vimar\u015ba between Plotinus and Utpaladeva (Introduction)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In this series, I will be engaging in an extended comparison of the role of the Soul in Plotinus\u2019 Enneads with that of Vimar\u015ba in Pratyabhij\u00f1\u0101 philosophy. This comparative study will analyze the similar roles played by both concepts within their respective metaphysical systems, for the sake of contextualizing recent scholarly interest (including my own doctoral research) in similarities between Neoplatonic and Kashmiri \u015aaiva theories of aesthetics. Taking Kashmiri \u015aaivism or \u2018Param\u0101dvaita\u2019 as a suitable comparison to Platonic thought follows what is increasingly becoming an established path of Greco-Indian comparative research. Before beginning this series, then, because such a history bears on the method for studying Soul and Vimar\u015ba, it is worth recounting this parampar\u0101<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In The Aesthetic Experience According to Abhinavagupta<\/em>, Raniero Gnoli emphasizes the centrality of the concept of camatk\u0101ra <\/em>to Abhinavagupta\u2019s aesthetic theory. He traced this term back to Utpaladeva (\u012aPK <\/em>I.5.11 and the accompanying v\u1e5btti <\/em>comments) as pioneering its technical use <\/em>(which he understands as \u2018wonder\u2019 and \u2018astonishment\u2019). Furthermore, he drew a parallel between\u00a0 Abhinavagupta, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, Plato\u2019s Phaderus<\/em> and Proclus\u2019s Platonic Theology<\/em>, the latter of which he quotes in Greek, with his own translation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe aesthetic and mystical state of consciousness are not only characterized by a particular bliss or repose. According to Abhinavagupta and his school, they are accompanied by a sense of wonder or surprise. The word expressing this wonder, i.e. camatk\u0101ra <\/em>is frequently found, in its ordinary, non-technical sense of surprise, amazement, in Indian literature. […] The first to use this term in a technical sense was probably Utpaladeva, who was the master of the master of Abhinavaguta. […] The general idea underlying these words (compare, in this connection, also the P\u0101li and buddhist term samvega<\/em>) is that both the mystical and the aesthetic experience imply a cessation of a world \u2013 the ordinary, historical world, the sams\u0101ra<\/em> \u2013 and its sudden replacement by a new dimension of reality. In this sense the two are wonder or surprise. A parallel of this idea of a kind of wonder which fills the soul in front of the beautiful or the sacred, exists in western thought also. We find it in Plato and especially in Neoplatonismus. \u201cSouls,\u201d Plato says, \u201cwhen they see here any likeness of things of that other world, are stricken with wonder, \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03bb\u03ae\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 and can no longer control themselves\u201d (Phaidros <\/em>250a). According to Proclus, this sense of amazement, \u1f14\u03ba\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03be\u03b9\u03c2, accompanies both the beautiful and the sacred. \u201cThe beautiful,\u201d he says in the Theologia Platonica<\/em>, is appearing with wonder \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u2019 \u1f10\u03ba\u03c0\u03bb\u03b7\u03be\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, and incites \u201call the things towards itself through desire and wonder.\u201d In the same work we read eventually that \u201cwe are incited toward the beautiful with wonder and emotion\u201d and that \u201cthe soul, seeing the invisible, as it were, rejoices itself, admires its appearing, and is astonished at it. And as the mystics in the most saint religious rites, before the mystical visions, are stricken with wonder, so, among the intelligibles also, the beautiful appears in advance, before the communion with the good, and strikes with wonder those who are seeing.\u201d (Gnoli 1968, xlv-xlvii).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This connection notably informs my choice to compare the Plotinian concept of Soul to the concept of Vimar\u015ba for Utpaladeva, because the very passage to which Gnoli is referring grounds camatk\u0101ra <\/em>in Vimar\u015ba: we will return to this in a later post.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 Gnoli\u2019s student, Raffaele Torella, has reinterpreted camatk\u0101ra <\/em>not as wonder, but as \u201csavoring\u201d (Torella 2023b, 63), having contextualized the term through Abhinavagupta\u2019s commentary on Utpaladeva\u2019s work (\u012a\u015bvarapratyabhij\u00f1\u0101viv\u1e5btivimar\u015bin\u012b<\/em>) as well as his aesthetic commentary on the N\u0101\u1e6dya\u015b\u0101stra <\/em>(Abhinavabh\u0101rat\u012b<\/em>). Despite this helpful revision, Torella has maintained the comparative path set forth by Gnoli, drawing parallels between Abhinavagupta\u2019s understanding of aesthetic experience with that of Plotinus (Torella 2023a, 761). Both this comparison as well as Torella\u2019s rereading of camatk\u0101ra <\/em>not as instantaneous wonder has had an impact in scholarly research on spiritual practices in Plotinus. Michael Wakoff\u2019s 2023 paper presented at the Society for Classical Studies conference, \u201cPlotinus as a Rasika\u201d<\/a>, draws directly on Torella\u2019s understanding, even including some direct contributions by Torella himself. Wakoff has since reworked this paper into a chapter (“Savoring Beauty: A Plotinian Spiritual Practice”<\/a>) in a forthcoming volume edited by Sarah Abhel-Rappe and Mateusz Str\u00f3\u017cy\u0144ski. Certainly, we must also mention Gregory Shaw\u2019s 2017 article \u201cPlatonic Tantra,\u201d which later grew into a full-length book, Hellenic Tantra<\/em> – while not primarily concerned with aesthetics, it nevertheless shows the growth of Platonic and Tantric comparative research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But among all scholarly comparisons between Kashmiri \u015aaivism and later Platonism, Michal Just\u2019s 2013 article in Comparative Philosophy <\/em>titled \u201cNeoplatonism and Param\u0101dvaita,\u201d is perhaps most responsible for firmly establishing the latter \u2014 rather than classical Advaita \u2014 as a fitting partner to late Platonism for intercultural philosophical inquiry. Just addresses two primary challenges which faced earlier scholarly attempts at comparing Plotinian thought with Indian philosophy:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(1) The enthusiasm of scholars of previous generations for a historical-diffusionist model which tries to locate either a Greek origin for philosophy in India (Eliade), or Indian origin for Plotinian philosophy (McEvilley), despite a significant lack of evidence to support such a model. Armstrong in many ways already settled this question in his work, \u201cPlotinus and India.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(2) The fact that specific details of Advaitan philosophical teachings do not seem to have a strong Plotinian analogue. While Plotinus clearly does not think that matter exists in the way Real Beings (ie, the Forms) do, he does not appear to argue for an illusionist explanation for the sensible cosmos. Much of the scholarly debates observed in the two volumes, Neoplatonism and Indian Philosophy <\/em>and Neoplatonism and Indian Thought<\/em>, return to this topic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just is able to strongly address both of these problems. The first he resolves by abstaining from the question of historical influence (without going down the alternative road, with Bussanich 2005 towards a perennialist explanation for philosophical similarities). He instead proposes a \u201cstructural hypothesis,\u201d where he aims to explain philosophical similarities between Platonic and Tantric authors through \u2018structural reason:\u2019 analyzing how concepts which appear similar have analogous functions, serve analogous purposes, and answer similar questions between the two systems. The second, he aptly overcomes \u2014 with an advantage over those earlier comparative volumes by having access to recent advances in scholarship on Tantra \u2014 in pointing to a non-dualist, \u2018dynamic monist\u2019 philosophical analogue which does not affirm the world to be an illusion: Kashmiri \u015aaivism.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This series will take up not only Just\u2019s proposal, which is now clearly recognized as productive, but also his structural hypothesis (unlike, for example, Shaw 2017, 281). This will allow us to Soul and Vimar\u015ba without the extratextual baggage of speculation about both possible channels of philosophical transmission between Greece and India and shared mystical experiences to which we, textually, do not have an unmediated access. Rather, we will study how Soul and Vimar\u015ba each fit into a broader system of thought, and how their similarities emerge rationally as philosophers find themselves with only so many possible ways to resolve problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This series will provide a comparison a fourfold structural analysis of Soul and Vimar\u015ba: both (1) proceed from and revert to a metaphysically prior principle of consciousness identified with a masculine deity; (2) are fundamentally immaterial; (3) are a necessary principle of motion, change and action; and (4) operate at multiple registers, universal and individual, where the former maintains a perfect, inerrant state while the latter may admit of error.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A brief word about terminology: the term Vimar\u015ba comes from the root \u221am\u1e5b\u015b, meaning \u201cconsider, examine, or think\u201d, to which is added the prefix vi-, which strengthens or intensifies the root. Torella translates the term in English as \u201creflective awareness\u201d and notes that across Utpaladeva\u2019s \u012a\u015bvarapratyabhij\u00f1\u0101k\u0101rik\u0101 <\/em>(which will serve as the primary Sanskrit text in comparison) and the Pratyabhij\u00f1\u0101 school more generally the root \u221am\u1e5b\u015b appears with other prefixes which are largely used interchangeably with Vimar\u015ba (Torella 2021, xxv, footnote 32). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bussanich, John. (2005). \u201cThe Roots of Platonism and Ved\u0101nta: Comments on McEvilley.\u201d International Journal of Hindu Studies<\/em> (9), Springer. pp. 1-20.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gnoli, Raniero (1968). The Aesthetic Experience According to Abhinavagupta<\/em>. Chowkhamba Sanskrit Studies LXII. (Varanasi: The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office). Second Edition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just, Michal. (2013) \u201cNeoplatonism and Param\u0101dvaita\u201d, Comparative Philosophy<\/em> 4.2. 1-28.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shaw, Gregory. (2017), \u201cPlatonic Tantra: Theurgists of Late Antiquity\u201d. Quaderni di Studi Indo-Mediterranei<\/em> (X). Boccassini, Daniela (Ed.). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Torella, Raffaele (2021) (tr.), The \u012a\u015bvarapratyabhij\u00f1\u0101k\u0101rik\u0101 of Utpaladeva with the Author\u2019s V\u1e5btti: Critical Edition and Annotated Translation<\/em>. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Torella, Raffaele. (2023), \u201cBeauty (Saundarya)\u201d in Eltschinger, Vincent (Ed.), Burlesque of the Philosophers. Indian and Buddhist Studies in Memory of Helmut Krasser. <\/em>Hamburg Buddhist Studies Series 19. (Bochum\/Freiburg: projekt verlag).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Torella, Raffaele. (2023), \u201cCamatk\u0101ra.\u201d Journal of Indological Studies<\/em> (34-35), March. pp. 39-72.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In this series, I will be engaging in an extended comparison of the role of the Soul in Plotinus\u2019 Enneads with that of Vimar\u015ba in Pratyabhij\u00f1\u0101 philosophy. This comparative study will analyze the similar roles played by both concepts within their respective metaphysical systems, for the sake of contextualizing recent scholarly interest (including my own…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"pagelayer_contact_templates":[],"_pagelayer_content":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[22,17,23,3,18,21],"class_list":["post-39","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-aesthetics","tag-comparative-philosophy","tag-kashmiri-shaivism","tag-plotinus","tag-tantra","tag-utpaladeva"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":55,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39\/revisions\/55"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}